ANGRY residents claim they have been misled by council bosses after it was revealed some would see their rents more than doubled under plans to rebuild a Southampton estate.

The city council this week gave the green light for work to start on the first phase of a £100m redevelopment of Townhill Park.

The scheme for the rejuvenation of Meggeson Avenue and surrounding areas will see 675 new flats and houses built, 450 of which will be owned and run by Southampton City Council.

But is has been revealed that once the new homes are built the authority will be charging the maximum it is allowed under Government rules – in some cases more than double the current rent.

An extensive consultation exercise was launched in September by the council where residents were apparently told of the hike in rents – prompting not one single objection, according to a report to the authority.

However, when the Daily Echo spoke to residents living in Meggeson Avenue they said they had not been told that rents would rise by at least 67 per cent.

Pensioner George Wardell was one of the original Townhill Park tenants when the homes were built in 1959.

The 90-year-old told the Daily Echo that no one from the council had visited him to inform of the proposed rent hikes.

He said: “I can’t get around that well, so I rely on people knocking my door and putting leaflets through the door, but I haven’t had any of that from the council.

“I don’t think I’d be willing to pay double what I am now, but what choice do I have?”

Ivor Sivier, 44, who has lived in his Meggeson Avenue flat for 11 years, added: “The council haven’t mentioned anything to me about rent.

“They are just trying to recoup their outlay on the development as quickly as possible, which seems unfair and unjustifiable.

“I thought this was supposed to be affordable housing?”

Another angry resident, Alex Lake, added: “The council have misled us. It’s as simple as that. Call it what you want, misleading, being economical with the truth, but they have not told us that our rent would be doubled.

“I’m stunned really. I had two people from the council sat on my sofa six or seven weeks ago and a rent increase was not mentioned.

“I wouldn’t be able to move back even if I wanted to now because I couldn’t afford it.”

Another neighbour, who asked not to be named, slammed the “crazy” rent increases and claimed he would now be seeking to find a permanent new home elsewhere in the city, while another resident dubbed the council’s conduct “a joke”.

A lot of people that live on the estate are on benefits and struggling with money, so why would they agree to that?

“When Labour took over, a lot of the houses were going to be run by housing associations. At the time they said that if housing associations took over then rents would be much dearer.

“The council decided to rent their own stock and run many of the new properties themselves.

“We thought that would lead to lower rent costs, but now this has happened. I’m shocked.”

Jo Proctor, a community development worker in Townhill Park, said: “From what I saw at consultations, various posters were put up giving examples of rents, showing what people would be paying if they came back here. But none of these said that some rents would be doubled.

“It begs the question: Will the people that move out during the regeneration come back?

“Does this mean we will be left with a load of empty properties? That’s not going to be any good for Townhill Park.”

A city council statement said officers were given a script in which they were told to outline the increases if tenants expressed an interest in returning to their homes after the refurbishment.

The authority added that boards showing the increases were also displayed during the public consultations.

However, the figures used did not directly compare current rents to what the new figure will be.

Housing boss Cllr Warwick Payne said the Daily Echo’s findings put him in “a difficult position” as officers’ feedback was that no concerns had been raised over the issue of rent increases.

He said: “Aside from no one contacting me directly with any concerns, I also have the officers telling me that no objections were raised yet your own findings are telling me another,” he said.

Cllr Payne said of the 115 residents who would be moved out in the first phase of the scheme, his understanding was that 90 had been spoken to by council officers who reported that the residents were “unconcerned” by the new levels although some had anticipated an increase of some sort.

However, he admitted that no detailed responses had been compiled as part of the consultation findings report.

Cllr Payne pointed to a previous regeneration project at Hinkler Parade in Thornhill where the majority of residents who were moved out to allow the rebuild, had not returned.

He said he didn’t think the lack of objections was unusual as it was likely most of the residents did not see themselves returning or believed they could cover the increase themselves or through their benefits.

A lot people cant afford private rent and a older person on fixed pension would really struggle

[quote][p][bold]shirley-bill[/bold] wrote:
Still cheaper than the private rents are![/p][/quote]A lot people cant afford private rent and a older person on fixed pension would really strugglesarfhamton

Welcome to real world rent prices and the harsh reality of the modern housing market! Those enjoying such low council rates have had it good for a long time whilst those renting privately or paying a mortgage do so through the nose. Glad to see the council starting to level the playing field for once.

Welcome to real world rent prices and the harsh reality of the modern housing market! Those enjoying such low council rates have had it good for a long time whilst those renting privately or paying a mortgage do so through the nose. Glad to see the council starting to level the playing field for once.Forest Resident

Surely it is better to increase the rents and then give Housing benefit to those on low incomes. This way it ensures those who CAN afford normal rent, pay the going rate.

Far too many people earn a good wage and still live in a cheap Council House.

Surely it is better to increase the rents and then give Housing benefit to those on low incomes. This way it ensures those who CAN afford normal rent, pay the going rate.
Far too many people earn a good wage and still live in a cheap Council House.IronLady2010

Those prices are still great compared to private rental. Hopefully means a better class of people living there rather than the bottom of the barrel scum of recent years. Perhaps they can cut back on their booze, fags and staffie dogs to meet the rent increase.

Those prices are still great compared to private rental. Hopefully means a better class of people living there rather than the bottom of the barrel scum of recent years. Perhaps they can cut back on their booze, fags and staffie dogs to meet the rent increase.MrBrightside85

flowergirly wrote:
This will only affect those residents who actually work.....those who choose not to work will get it paid by housing benifit!! Won't affect them!!

rubbish ,think you will find there is a housing benefit cap,they will be out on their ear.

[quote][p][bold]flowergirly[/bold] wrote:
This will only affect those residents who actually work.....those who choose not to work will get it paid by housing benifit!! Won't affect them!![/p][/quote]rubbish ,think you will find there is a housing benefit cap,they will be out on their ear.arthur dalyrimple

MrBrightside85 wrote:
Those prices are still great compared to private rental. Hopefully means a better class of people living there rather than the bottom of the barrel scum of recent years. Perhaps they can cut back on their booze, fags and staffie dogs to meet the rent increase.

so where does the "scum" go then?

[quote][p][bold]MrBrightside85[/bold] wrote:
Those prices are still great compared to private rental. Hopefully means a better class of people living there rather than the bottom of the barrel scum of recent years. Perhaps they can cut back on their booze, fags and staffie dogs to meet the rent increase.[/p][/quote]so where does the "scum" go then?sarfhamton

sarfhamton wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.

It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.
It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!George4th

sarfhamton wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.

It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

Plus increased birth rate!

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.
It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]Plus increased birth rate!George4th

flowergirly wrote:
This will only affect those residents who actually work.....those who choose not to work will get it paid by housing benifit!! Won't affect them!!

rubbish ,think you will find there is a housing benefit cap,they will be out on their ear.

Firstly they will be well within the housing cap so no they won't be out on their ear, also i think the so-called target rents are very low and the estimated rents rather high a more realistic rent would be around the £100 mark for a two bed flat but maybe the examples have been selected deliberately to dramatise the issue. Council rents have risen quite considerably over the last few years but have generally been a lot less than housing associations so i think that S.C.C are just trying to bring their rents into line with the H As which seems fair to me as some people must be paying very low rents if they are talking about the rents being doubled, if the quality of the housing and the environment are being improved its only fair that the people living their pay the appropriate rents.

[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]flowergirly[/bold] wrote:
This will only affect those residents who actually work.....those who choose not to work will get it paid by housing benifit!! Won't affect them!![/p][/quote]rubbish ,think you will find there is a housing benefit cap,they will be out on their ear.[/p][/quote]Firstly they will be well within the housing cap so no they won't be out on their ear, also i think the so-called target rents are very low and the estimated rents rather high a more realistic rent would be around the £100 mark for a two bed flat but maybe the examples have been selected deliberately to dramatise the issue. Council rents have risen quite considerably over the last few years but have generally been a lot less than housing associations so i think that S.C.C are just trying to bring their rents into line with the H As which seems fair to me as some people must be paying very low rents if they are talking about the rents being doubled, if the quality of the housing and the environment are being improved its only fair that the people living their pay the appropriate rents.ohec

MrBrightside85 wrote: Those prices are still great compared to private rental. Hopefully means a better class of people living there rather than the bottom of the barrel scum of recent years. Perhaps they can cut back on their booze, fags and staffie dogs to meet the rent increase.

so where does the &quot;scum" go then?

Portsmouth

[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]MrBrightside85[/bold] wrote: Those prices are still great compared to private rental. Hopefully means a better class of people living there rather than the bottom of the barrel scum of recent years. Perhaps they can cut back on their booze, fags and staffie dogs to meet the rent increase.[/p][/quote]so where does the "scum" go then?[/p][/quote]PortsmouthMrBrightside85

sarfhamton wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.

It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

No, its more buy to let mortgages i think

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.
It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]No, its more buy to let mortgages i thinksarfhamton

sarfhamton wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.

It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

Ok George4th we won't talk about the millions that the Conservatives let in in case it upsets you.

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.
It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]Ok George4th we won't talk about the millions that the Conservatives let in in case it upsets you.ohec

sarfhamton wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.

It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

No, its more buy to let mortgages i think

You can blame the buy to let mortgages that were allowed under the disasterous Labour government!
You cannot blame it over the past 4 years. (In line with a flat housing market, even the buy to lets are small fry in the big picture)
>
Labour had 13 years to build social housing! They had the best economy anyone has ever inherited. They had a golden opportunity to do good. What did they achieve? A wider gap between the have and have nots and a worse housing situation than anyone could ever have imagined!

[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.
It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]No, its more buy to let mortgages i think[/p][/quote]You can blame the buy to let mortgages that were allowed under the disasterous Labour government!
You cannot blame it over the past 4 years. (In line with a flat housing market, even the buy to lets are small fry in the big picture)
>
Labour had 13 years to build social housing! They had the best economy anyone has ever inherited. They had a golden opportunity to do good. What did they achieve? A wider gap between the have and have nots and a worse housing situation than anyone could ever have imagined!George4th

To be honest, by the time these houses are built the council rent will be the same as housing associations anyway.

I'd be more worried about the 25% deduction in housing benefit payments per household claim, for people of working age (16-64) that the council will be introducing from April 1st 2013 and possible implementation of civil penalties of £50 for failing to inform the council of household circumstances changes (within a month) that look likely

To be honest, by the time these houses are built the council rent will be the same as housing associations anyway.
I'd be more worried about the 25% deduction in housing benefit payments per household claim, for people of working age (16-64) that the council will be introducing from April 1st 2013 and possible implementation of civil penalties of £50 for failing to inform the council of household circumstances changes (within a month) that look likelyOver the Edge

To be honest, by the time these houses are built the council rent will be the same as housing associations anyway.

I'd be more worried about the 25% deduction in housing benefit payments per household claim, for people of working age (16-64) that the council will be introducing from April 1st 2013 and possible implementation of civil penalties of £50 for failing to inform the council of household circumstances changes (within a month) that look likely

To be honest, by the time these houses are built the council rent will be the same as housing associations anyway.
I'd be more worried about the 25% deduction in housing benefit payments per household claim, for people of working age (16-64) that the council will be introducing from April 1st 2013 and possible implementation of civil penalties of £50 for failing to inform the council of household circumstances changes (within a month) that look likelyOver the Edge

sarfhamton wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.

It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

No, its more buy to let mortgages i think

You can blame the buy to let mortgages that were allowed under the disasterous Labour government!
You cannot blame it over the past 4 years. (In line with a flat housing market, even the buy to lets are small fry in the big picture)
&gt;
Labour had 13 years to build social housing! They had the best economy anyone has ever inherited. They had a golden opportunity to do good. What did they achieve? A wider gap between the have and have nots and a worse housing situation than anyone could ever have imagined!

I don't know how you have the B*lls to say that when your great leader Thatcher sold (gave away) our housing stock the councils were not allowed to invest the measly sums they got for the houses in new builds, and they also had the opportunity to build.Everybody has the right to their own political beliefs but anybody with an ounce of intelligence should be able to take a balanced view and not be so blinkered as to only see one viewpoint. As for BLTs on one hand i can see why they buy to let as interest rates are so low, on the other hand all of these so-called landlords are buying up all of the property that would normally be for first time buyers, and it doesn't sit well with me that they are profiteering at the expense of ordinary working people but maybe just maybe their time will come.

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.
It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]No, its more buy to let mortgages i think[/p][/quote]You can blame the buy to let mortgages that were allowed under the disasterous Labour government!
You cannot blame it over the past 4 years. (In line with a flat housing market, even the buy to lets are small fry in the big picture)
>
Labour had 13 years to build social housing! They had the best economy anyone has ever inherited. They had a golden opportunity to do good. What did they achieve? A wider gap between the have and have nots and a worse housing situation than anyone could ever have imagined![/p][/quote]I don't know how you have the B*lls to say that when your great leader Thatcher sold (gave away) our housing stock the councils were not allowed to invest the measly sums they got for the houses in new builds, and they also had the opportunity to build.Everybody has the right to their own political beliefs but anybody with an ounce of intelligence should be able to take a balanced view and not be so blinkered as to only see one viewpoint. As for BLTs on one hand i can see why they buy to let as interest rates are so low, on the other hand all of these so-called landlords are buying up all of the property that would normally be for first time buyers, and it doesn't sit well with me that they are profiteering at the expense of ordinary working people but maybe just maybe their time will come.ohec

sarfhamton wrote: Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing. It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

You really are racist scum aren't you.

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing. It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]You really are racist scum aren't you.On the inside

sarfhamton wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.

It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

No, its more buy to let mortgages i think

You can blame the buy to let mortgages that were allowed under the disasterous Labour government!
You cannot blame it over the past 4 years. (In line with a flat housing market, even the buy to lets are small fry in the big picture)
&gt;
Labour had 13 years to build social housing! They had the best economy anyone has ever inherited. They had a golden opportunity to do good. What did they achieve? A wider gap between the have and have nots and a worse housing situation than anyone could ever have imagined!

That's a bit rich coming from a you,,,,Thatcher caused the housing shortage with her right to buy policy of the 80s

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.
It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]No, its more buy to let mortgages i think[/p][/quote]You can blame the buy to let mortgages that were allowed under the disasterous Labour government!
You cannot blame it over the past 4 years. (In line with a flat housing market, even the buy to lets are small fry in the big picture)
>
Labour had 13 years to build social housing! They had the best economy anyone has ever inherited. They had a golden opportunity to do good. What did they achieve? A wider gap between the have and have nots and a worse housing situation than anyone could ever have imagined![/p][/quote]That's a bit rich coming from a you,,,,Thatcher caused the housing shortage with her right to buy policy of the 80sOver the Edge

SotonGreen wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high !

Council Tax and Council rents are not connected in any way whatsoever. How can you be so stupid as to not understand somethong so basic about the structure and operation of local government financing. I'll bet you even have the cheek to vote.

[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high ![/p][/quote]Council Tax and Council rents are not connected in any way whatsoever. How can you be so stupid as to not understand somethong so basic about the structure and operation of local government financing. I'll bet you even have the cheek to vote.On the inside

sarfhamton wrote: Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing. It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

You really are racist scum aren't you.

I think it is unfair to accuse somebody of racism when they have not made a racist comment.Using the word immigrant does not amount to hate and you should be more thoughtful before you make these accusations.

Now to my point, how is a cartoon of some nondescript people in a green space a vision for Townhill Estate.
There is nothing so wrong with the flats that have been boarded up for years that they couldnt have given people a home and given revenue to the council.
New houses/flats wont change the outlook for Townhill, it needs investment in people.

[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing. It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]You really are racist scum aren't you.[/p][/quote]I think it is unfair to accuse somebody of racism when they have not made a racist comment.Using the word immigrant does not amount to hate and you should be more thoughtful before you make these accusations.
Now to my point, how is a cartoon of some nondescript people in a green space a vision for Townhill Estate.
There is nothing so wrong with the flats that have been boarded up for years that they couldnt have given people a home and given revenue to the council.
New houses/flats wont change the outlook for Townhill, it needs investment in people.bigfella777

sarfhamton wrote: Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing. It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

You really are racist scum aren't you.

Given that I am the son of immigrants I suggest you rethink your implication. However, I am used to seeing the slurs that you give to people you do not agree with.

[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing. It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]You really are racist scum aren't you.[/p][/quote]Given that I am the son of immigrants I suggest you rethink your implication. However, I am used to seeing the slurs that you give to people you do not agree with.George4th

sarfhamton wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.

It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

Ok George4th we won't talk about the millions that the Conservatives let in in case it upsets you.

I'd be interested in your breakdown of numbers if that is not too much trouble.

>

The fact remains that the Labour government opened up our borders to millions of both legal and illegal immigrants with no thought for housing or future jobs - nice one! But hey, they increased Benefits and opened up our welfare state for everyone so that's ok!!!!!!

[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.
It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]Ok George4th we won't talk about the millions that the Conservatives let in in case it upsets you.[/p][/quote]I'd be interested in your breakdown of numbers if that is not too much trouble.
>
The fact remains that the Labour government opened up our borders to millions of both legal and illegal immigrants with no thought for housing or future jobs - nice one! But hey, they increased Benefits and opened up our welfare state for everyone so that's ok!!!!!!George4th

sarfhamton wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.

It is not that council rents are low.

Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?!

No, its more buy to let mortgages i think

You can blame the buy to let mortgages that were allowed under the disasterous Labour government!
You cannot blame it over the past 4 years. (In line with a flat housing market, even the buy to lets are small fry in the big picture)
&gt;
Labour had 13 years to build social housing! They had the best economy anyone has ever inherited. They had a golden opportunity to do good. What did they achieve? A wider gap between the have and have nots and a worse housing situation than anyone could ever have imagined!

I don't know how you have the B*lls to say that when your great leader Thatcher sold (gave away) our housing stock the councils were not allowed to invest the measly sums they got for the houses in new builds, and they also had the opportunity to build.Everybody has the right to their own political beliefs but anybody with an ounce of intelligence should be able to take a balanced view and not be so blinkered as to only see one viewpoint. As for BLTs on one hand i can see why they buy to let as interest rates are so low, on the other hand all of these so-called landlords are buying up all of the property that would normally be for first time buyers, and it doesn't sit well with me that they are profiteering at the expense of ordinary working people but maybe just maybe their time will come.

"Everybody has the right to their own political beliefs but anybody with an ounce of intelligence should be able to take a balanced view and not be so blinkered as to only see one viewpoint."

I think you need to re-read what you just said!

[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
Private rents are artificially high because of a shortage of social housing.
It is not that council rents are low.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Labour allowing over 2 million immigrants into the country?![/p][/quote]No, its more buy to let mortgages i think[/p][/quote]You can blame the buy to let mortgages that were allowed under the disasterous Labour government!
You cannot blame it over the past 4 years. (In line with a flat housing market, even the buy to lets are small fry in the big picture)
>
Labour had 13 years to build social housing! They had the best economy anyone has ever inherited. They had a golden opportunity to do good. What did they achieve? A wider gap between the have and have nots and a worse housing situation than anyone could ever have imagined![/p][/quote]I don't know how you have the B*lls to say that when your great leader Thatcher sold (gave away) our housing stock the councils were not allowed to invest the measly sums they got for the houses in new builds, and they also had the opportunity to build.Everybody has the right to their own political beliefs but anybody with an ounce of intelligence should be able to take a balanced view and not be so blinkered as to only see one viewpoint. As for BLTs on one hand i can see why they buy to let as interest rates are so low, on the other hand all of these so-called landlords are buying up all of the property that would normally be for first time buyers, and it doesn't sit well with me that they are profiteering at the expense of ordinary working people but maybe just maybe their time will come.[/p][/quote]"Everybody has the right to their own political beliefs but anybody with an ounce of intelligence should be able to take a balanced view and not be so blinkered as to only see one viewpoint."
I think you need to re-read what you just said!George4th

This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.

This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.Maine Lobster

Maine Lobster wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.

"the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"

1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?

2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!

3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
>

But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council!

[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.[/p][/quote]"the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"
1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?
2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!
3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
>
But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council!George4th

They should just be more in line with private rents. If you're retired and you have no savings or a pension, you can claim housing benefit. There's no reason why a lot of these other people don't get a job and earn a wage like all the other people that have to pay private rent or a mortgage. I work and pay my mortgage as I want to achieve something and was raised in an environment where this attitude was encouraged and should be applied to everything you do. I don't see any distinction between rich and poor, just a distinction between those that work hard and those that are bone idle.
The only thing that is stopping some of these people not working is nobody will make them do it so they'd rather stay at home all day or drag their kids around the town clad in their latest purchases and let tax payers support their pointless existence. There is no sense of self pride or achievement as they have grown up in a culture that teaches them just to take and that everything is owed to them. And you can't deny that this country isn't a joke for all the benefits it hands out, just waiting for 'dog benefit' to be introduced so you can insure that your staffie has just as comfortable a pampered existence as you do.

They should just be more in line with private rents. If you're retired and you have no savings or a pension, you can claim housing benefit. There's no reason why a lot of these other people don't get a job and earn a wage like all the other people that have to pay private rent or a mortgage. I work and pay my mortgage as I want to achieve something and was raised in an environment where this attitude was encouraged and should be applied to everything you do. I don't see any distinction between rich and poor, just a distinction between those that work hard and those that are bone idle.
The only thing that is stopping some of these people not working is nobody will make them do it so they'd rather stay at home all day or drag their kids around the town clad in their latest purchases and let tax payers support their pointless existence. There is no sense of self pride or achievement as they have grown up in a culture that teaches them just to take and that everything is owed to them. And you can't deny that this country isn't a joke for all the benefits it hands out, just waiting for 'dog benefit' to be introduced so you can insure that your staffie has just as comfortable a pampered existence as you do.sotonboy84

SotonGreen wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high !

I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.

[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high ![/p][/quote]I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.Inform Al

Maine Lobster wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.

&quot;the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"

1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?

2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!

3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
&gt;

But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council!

I can help with some of your queries. 50 empty council homes were sold oiff by the Tories, as although the Housing Revenue Account is ring fenced capital income from assets is not. This means that the selling off of those homes, the selling off of the Swaythling Youth Centre and the selling off of the Flower Roads Community Centre all contributed to the Sea City Mausoleum

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.[/p][/quote]"the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"
1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?
2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!
3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
>
But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council![/p][/quote]I can help with some of your queries. 50 empty council homes were sold oiff by the Tories, as although the Housing Revenue Account is ring fenced capital income from assets is not. This means that the selling off of those homes, the selling off of the Swaythling Youth Centre and the selling off of the Flower Roads Community Centre all contributed to the Sea City MausoleumInform Al

Maine Lobster wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.

&quot;the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"

1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?

2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!

3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
&gt;

But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council!

I can help with some of your queries. 50 empty council homes were sold oiff by the Tories, as although the Housing Revenue Account is ring fenced capital income from assets is not. This means that the selling off of those homes, the selling off of the Swaythling Youth Centre and the selling off of the Flower Roads Community Centre all contributed to the Sea City Mausoleum

Why did you bother? That is giving a very misleading partial answer to the question.

[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.[/p][/quote]"the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"
1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?
2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!
3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
>
But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council![/p][/quote]I can help with some of your queries. 50 empty council homes were sold oiff by the Tories, as although the Housing Revenue Account is ring fenced capital income from assets is not. This means that the selling off of those homes, the selling off of the Swaythling Youth Centre and the selling off of the Flower Roads Community Centre all contributed to the Sea City Mausoleum[/p][/quote]Why did you bother? That is giving a very misleading partial answer to the question.George4th

soton green at the end of the day is still right, the tax payer subsidises theh tenants and others. If they can not afford a house they should stay at their parents forever, not let us look after them.

soton green at the end of the day is still right, the tax payer subsidises theh tenants and others. If they can not afford a house they should stay at their parents forever, not let us look after them.SaintM

SotonGreen wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high !

I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.

Funny how we are out of recession and Europe is in recession!
Unemployment down, number of employed at record levels, borrowings under control, defit reduced, exporting more than 50% to non-European countries etc.

Oh, and that was after inheriting the worst economy known to the UK with a running debt of over £1000 Billion and climbing! Yes, those Tories and LibDems are really doing a bad job!!!!

[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high ![/p][/quote]I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.[/p][/quote]Funny how we are out of recession and Europe is in recession!
Unemployment down, number of employed at record levels, borrowings under control, defit reduced, exporting more than 50% to non-European countries etc.
Oh, and that was after inheriting the worst economy known to the UK with a running debt of over £1000 Billion and climbing! Yes, those Tories and LibDems are really doing a bad job!!!!George4th

SotonGreen wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high !

I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.

Funny how we are out of recession and Europe is in recession!
Unemployment down, number of employed at record levels, borrowings under control, defit reduced, exporting more than 50% to non-European countries etc.

Oh, and that was after inheriting the worst economy known to the UK with a running debt of over £1000 Billion and climbing! Yes, those Tories and LibDems are really doing a bad job!!!!

Some sheep will believe all they are told by the party. Reality is, yes we'd be better off out of the EU, but we are not doing as well as we should, many of the new jobs are in fact only part time for example. A massive house building exercise would have picked us up and clearly out of the smelly stuff, but as I've said before personal instincts of the rich will prevent this from happening.

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high ![/p][/quote]I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.[/p][/quote]Funny how we are out of recession and Europe is in recession!
Unemployment down, number of employed at record levels, borrowings under control, defit reduced, exporting more than 50% to non-European countries etc.
Oh, and that was after inheriting the worst economy known to the UK with a running debt of over £1000 Billion and climbing! Yes, those Tories and LibDems are really doing a bad job!!!![/p][/quote]Some sheep will believe all they are told by the party. Reality is, yes we'd be better off out of the EU, but we are not doing as well as we should, many of the new jobs are in fact only part time for example. A massive house building exercise would have picked us up and clearly out of the smelly stuff, but as I've said before personal instincts of the rich will prevent this from happening.Inform Al

SaintM wrote:
soton green at the end of the day is still right, the tax payer subsidises theh tenants and others. If they can not afford a house they should stay at their parents forever, not let us look after them.

From about the 60s/70s, aspirational people who wanted their own house, saved and saved and went without to get on the property ladder no matter what it took. Most didn't start a family until they were married and in their own home.
>
Some (a lot fewer) still do it that way but the attitude of "I want it now" was fostered in the late 90s and early 2000s and too many people got sucked in without thinking of how they would pay for it and the penalty of doing things the wrong way round - it also nullified their ability to go without and save money.
>
Still, we all have lifestyle choices and shouldn't blame everyone else for making the wrong choices.

[quote][p][bold]SaintM[/bold] wrote:
soton green at the end of the day is still right, the tax payer subsidises theh tenants and others. If they can not afford a house they should stay at their parents forever, not let us look after them.[/p][/quote]From about the 60s/70s, aspirational people who wanted their own house, saved and saved and went without to get on the property ladder no matter what it took. Most didn't start a family until they were married and in their own home.
>
Some (a lot fewer) still do it that way but the attitude of "I want it now" was fostered in the late 90s and early 2000s and too many people got sucked in without thinking of how they would pay for it and the penalty of doing things the wrong way round - it also nullified their ability to go without and save money.
>
Still, we all have lifestyle choices and shouldn't blame everyone else for making the wrong choices.George4th

Maine Lobster wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.

&quot;the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"

1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?

2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!

3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
&gt;

But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council!

I can help with some of your queries. 50 empty council homes were sold oiff by the Tories, as although the Housing Revenue Account is ring fenced capital income from assets is not. This means that the selling off of those homes, the selling off of the Swaythling Youth Centre and the selling off of the Flower Roads Community Centre all contributed to the Sea City Mausoleum

Why did you bother? That is giving a very misleading partial answer to the question.

Sorry, I answered the only bit I felt able to do accurately.

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.[/p][/quote]"the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"
1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?
2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!
3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
>
But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council![/p][/quote]I can help with some of your queries. 50 empty council homes were sold oiff by the Tories, as although the Housing Revenue Account is ring fenced capital income from assets is not. This means that the selling off of those homes, the selling off of the Swaythling Youth Centre and the selling off of the Flower Roads Community Centre all contributed to the Sea City Mausoleum[/p][/quote]Why did you bother? That is giving a very misleading partial answer to the question.[/p][/quote]Sorry, I answered the only bit I felt able to do accurately.Inform Al

SotonGreen wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high !

I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.

Funny how we are out of recession and Europe is in recession!
Unemployment down, number of employed at record levels, borrowings under control, defit reduced, exporting more than 50% to non-European countries etc.

Oh, and that was after inheriting the worst economy known to the UK with a running debt of over £1000 Billion and climbing! Yes, those Tories and LibDems are really doing a bad job!!!!

Some sheep will believe all they are told by the party. Reality is, yes we'd be better off out of the EU, but we are not doing as well as we should, many of the new jobs are in fact only part time for example. A massive house building exercise would have picked us up and clearly out of the smelly stuff, but as I've said before personal instincts of the rich will prevent this from happening.

Baa! If you can't acknowledge current success when it's in front of you then please feel free to console yourself with failure from the past under the last two Labour governments........

[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high ![/p][/quote]I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.[/p][/quote]Funny how we are out of recession and Europe is in recession!
Unemployment down, number of employed at record levels, borrowings under control, defit reduced, exporting more than 50% to non-European countries etc.
Oh, and that was after inheriting the worst economy known to the UK with a running debt of over £1000 Billion and climbing! Yes, those Tories and LibDems are really doing a bad job!!!![/p][/quote]Some sheep will believe all they are told by the party. Reality is, yes we'd be better off out of the EU, but we are not doing as well as we should, many of the new jobs are in fact only part time for example. A massive house building exercise would have picked us up and clearly out of the smelly stuff, but as I've said before personal instincts of the rich will prevent this from happening.[/p][/quote]Baa! If you can't acknowledge current success when it's in front of you then please feel free to console yourself with failure from the past under the last two Labour governments........George4th

SotonGreen wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high !

I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.

Funny how we are out of recession and Europe is in recession!
Unemployment down, number of employed at record levels, borrowings under control, defit reduced, exporting more than 50% to non-European countries etc.

Oh, and that was after inheriting the worst economy known to the UK with a running debt of over £1000 Billion and climbing! Yes, those Tories and LibDems are really doing a bad job!!!!

Some sheep will believe all they are told by the party. Reality is, yes we'd be better off out of the EU, but we are not doing as well as we should, many of the new jobs are in fact only part time for example. A massive house building exercise would have picked us up and clearly out of the smelly stuff, but as I've said before personal instincts of the rich will prevent this from happening.

Baa! If you can't acknowledge current success when it's in front of you then please feel free to console yourself with failure from the past under the last two Labour governments........

Think you've got me wrong. When Brown was PM I said we could never get a worse one. Unfortunately I was very quickly proved wrong.

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high ![/p][/quote]I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.[/p][/quote]Funny how we are out of recession and Europe is in recession!
Unemployment down, number of employed at record levels, borrowings under control, defit reduced, exporting more than 50% to non-European countries etc.
Oh, and that was after inheriting the worst economy known to the UK with a running debt of over £1000 Billion and climbing! Yes, those Tories and LibDems are really doing a bad job!!!![/p][/quote]Some sheep will believe all they are told by the party. Reality is, yes we'd be better off out of the EU, but we are not doing as well as we should, many of the new jobs are in fact only part time for example. A massive house building exercise would have picked us up and clearly out of the smelly stuff, but as I've said before personal instincts of the rich will prevent this from happening.[/p][/quote]Baa! If you can't acknowledge current success when it's in front of you then please feel free to console yourself with failure from the past under the last two Labour governments........[/p][/quote]Think you've got me wrong. When Brown was PM I said we could never get a worse one. Unfortunately I was very quickly proved wrong.Inform Al

SotonGreen wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high !

I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.

Funny how we are out of recession and Europe is in recession!
Unemployment down, number of employed at record levels, borrowings under control, defit reduced, exporting more than 50% to non-European countries etc.

Oh, and that was after inheriting the worst economy known to the UK with a running debt of over £1000 Billion and climbing! Yes, those Tories and LibDems are really doing a bad job!!!!

Some sheep will believe all they are told by the party. Reality is, yes we'd be better off out of the EU, but we are not doing as well as we should, many of the new jobs are in fact only part time for example. A massive house building exercise would have picked us up and clearly out of the smelly stuff, but as I've said before personal instincts of the rich will prevent this from happening.

Baa! If you can't acknowledge current success when it's in front of you then please feel free to console yourself with failure from the past under the last two Labour governments........

Think you've got me wrong. When Brown was PM I said we could never get a worse one. Unfortunately I was very quickly proved wrong.

I was meaning the one before Thatcher and the one after Major - both lead us to the door of the IMF.............

[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
I am shocked that I am paying for all these people to live in subsidised rental properties. The rent should be at market rates, no wonder my council tax is so high ![/p][/quote]I've had a good laugh at the commernts so far, but must respond to this one. Far from costing you money from your council tax, the reallity is that the Housing Revenue Account is fully funded by tenants rents and until recently was actually taxed by central government to subsidise you. If the current gumment.was not so keen to look after it's rich property owning party donors they would build many more council houses that will have the erffect of lowering the overall housing benefit payouts, putting unemployed people into work and providing badly needed housing. Will not happen though as it will upset C'moron's mates.[/p][/quote]Funny how we are out of recession and Europe is in recession!
Unemployment down, number of employed at record levels, borrowings under control, defit reduced, exporting more than 50% to non-European countries etc.
Oh, and that was after inheriting the worst economy known to the UK with a running debt of over £1000 Billion and climbing! Yes, those Tories and LibDems are really doing a bad job!!!![/p][/quote]Some sheep will believe all they are told by the party. Reality is, yes we'd be better off out of the EU, but we are not doing as well as we should, many of the new jobs are in fact only part time for example. A massive house building exercise would have picked us up and clearly out of the smelly stuff, but as I've said before personal instincts of the rich will prevent this from happening.[/p][/quote]Baa! If you can't acknowledge current success when it's in front of you then please feel free to console yourself with failure from the past under the last two Labour governments........[/p][/quote]Think you've got me wrong. When Brown was PM I said we could never get a worse one. Unfortunately I was very quickly proved wrong.[/p][/quote]I was meaning the one before Thatcher and the one after Major - both lead us to the door of the IMF.............George4th

Maine Lobster wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.

&quot;the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"

1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?

2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!

3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
&gt;

But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council!

The last administration spent Council reserves and borrowed money from another Council to fund it. You always state the same old boring breakdown demand. Those are the facts. You want the figures, you get them on a freedomn of information enquiry.

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.[/p][/quote]"the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"
1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?
2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!
3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
>
But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council![/p][/quote]The last administration spent Council reserves and borrowed money from another Council to fund it. You always state the same old boring breakdown demand. Those are the facts. You want the figures, you get them on a freedomn of information enquiry.Maine Lobster

Maine Lobster wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.

&quot;the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"

1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?

2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!

3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
&gt;

But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council!

The last administration spent Council reserves and borrowed money from another Council to fund it. You always state the same old boring breakdown demand. Those are the facts. You want the figures, you get them on a freedomn of information enquiry.

I thought Royston was quoted as saying the other day that they hadn't spent the reserves? I may be wrong as I often am, but I'm sure I read that!

[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.[/p][/quote]"the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"
1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?
2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!
3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
>
But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council![/p][/quote]The last administration spent Council reserves and borrowed money from another Council to fund it. You always state the same old boring breakdown demand. Those are the facts. You want the figures, you get them on a freedomn of information enquiry.[/p][/quote]I thought Royston was quoted as saying the other day that they hadn't spent the reserves? I may be wrong as I often am, but I'm sure I read that!IronLady2010

I'm shocked at this as these people could take out a fixed rate mortgage & pay less than this if they took up the Government offer of a 75% cut in the cost of their homes.
my neighbour was quoted £110,000 to buy his property a year ago.
now he'll be looking at£35-£40,000 mortgage?
move into the council property & exercise your right to buy & get rid of these rents

I'm shocked at this as these people could take out a fixed rate mortgage & pay less than this if they took up the Government offer of a 75% cut in the cost of their homes.
my neighbour was quoted £110,000 to buy his property a year ago.
now he'll be looking at£35-£40,000 mortgage?
move into the council property & exercise your right to buy & get rid of these rentsloosehead

Maine Lobster wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.

&quot;the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"

1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?

2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!

3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
&gt;

But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council!

The last administration spent Council reserves and borrowed money from another Council to fund it. You always state the same old boring breakdown demand. Those are the facts. You want the figures, you get them on a freedomn of information enquiry.

I thought Royston was quoted as saying the other day that they hadn't spent the reserves? I may be wrong as I often am, but I'm sure I read that!

Don't believe what that man says!

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.[/p][/quote]"the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"
1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?
2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!
3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
>
But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council![/p][/quote]The last administration spent Council reserves and borrowed money from another Council to fund it. You always state the same old boring breakdown demand. Those are the facts. You want the figures, you get them on a freedomn of information enquiry.[/p][/quote]I thought Royston was quoted as saying the other day that they hadn't spent the reserves? I may be wrong as I often am, but I'm sure I read that![/p][/quote]Don't believe what that man says!Maine Lobster

Maine Lobster wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.

&quot;the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"

1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?

2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!

3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
&gt;

But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council!

The last administration spent Council reserves and borrowed money from another Council to fund it. You always state the same old boring breakdown demand. Those are the facts. You want the figures, you get them on a freedomn of information enquiry.

"Those are the facts"

Oh right!
>
>
You are doing "The Southy" who when unable to back up comments, throws gobble-dee-gook mis-spelt smokescreens in the hope that posters will give up!
>
"You always state the same old boring breakdown demand"

I'd be interested in the exact number of times I have done this!

[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote:
This is a legacy from the last administration who dissolved the Tenant's Fedreration and reduced the ability for tenants to be properly consulted. Councillor Peter Baillie was the Housing boss until May who closed most of the Local Housing Offices and has reduced Housing services across the city so he could fund fanciful regeneration projects which, like the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for. Now they have the gall to blame others.[/p][/quote]"the Sea City Museum and the new Arts Centre were not affordable but the Tories spent and borrowed millions for"
1. Can you please enlighten us by giving us a TRUE and EXACT breakdown of the costs and where the money came from/comes from?
2. The City of Southampton lacks culture and as soon as we embrace a bit of culture, the whingers, moaners and armchair critics are overcome with apathy!
3. The Arts Centre is another piece of the jigsaw for making the City of Southampton more interesting to visit. Surprisingly, to the apathetic, it will help create jobs through the tourists and visitiors spending money! More business means more money and more local business and domestic taxes!
>
But hey, what do the apathetic care about as long as they have Labour running the council![/p][/quote]The last administration spent Council reserves and borrowed money from another Council to fund it. You always state the same old boring breakdown demand. Those are the facts. You want the figures, you get them on a freedomn of information enquiry.[/p][/quote]"Those are the facts"
Oh right!
>
>
You are doing "The Southy" who when unable to back up comments, throws gobble-dee-gook mis-spelt smokescreens in the hope that posters will give up!
>
"You always state the same old boring breakdown demand"
I'd be interested in the exact number of times I have done this!George4th

GEORGE4TH your analysis is flawed, ill make a bet with you that Britain is back in recession by Q4, in fact any day now we will hear the first 'revised' figures for the last Q (THE ONE WITH THE DODGY OLYMPIC ACCOUNTING TRICK) I bet you it is revised down and down between now and january, keep an eye out for it, negative revisions never get as much media.

GEORGE4TH your analysis is flawed, ill make a bet with you that Britain is back in recession by Q4, in fact any day now we will hear the first 'revised' figures for the last Q (THE ONE WITH THE DODGY OLYMPIC ACCOUNTING TRICK) I bet you it is revised down and down between now and january, keep an eye out for it, negative revisions never get as much media.peenut81

peenut81 wrote:
GEORGE4TH your analysis is flawed, ill make a bet with you that Britain is back in recession by Q4, in fact any day now we will hear the first 'revised' figures for the last Q (THE ONE WITH THE DODGY OLYMPIC ACCOUNTING TRICK) I bet you it is revised down and down between now and january, keep an eye out for it, negative revisions never get as much media.

As the governor of the bank of England has basically just said that it's not to hard an assumption to say you might be right.
But you failed to mention that the IMF said we're taking the right measures to cut the deficit & both of them have said we are starting to pull out of it

[quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote:
GEORGE4TH your analysis is flawed, ill make a bet with you that Britain is back in recession by Q4, in fact any day now we will hear the first 'revised' figures for the last Q (THE ONE WITH THE DODGY OLYMPIC ACCOUNTING TRICK) I bet you it is revised down and down between now and january, keep an eye out for it, negative revisions never get as much media.[/p][/quote]As the governor of the bank of England has basically just said that it's not to hard an assumption to say you might be right.
But you failed to mention that the IMF said we're taking the right measures to cut the deficit & both of them have said we are starting to pull out of itloosehead

MGRA wrote:
why should people get cheap housing ? really I mean why shoould they ?

Why should they have houses at all, plenty of tents available at Oswald Baileys.

[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote:
why should people get cheap housing ? really I mean why shoould they ?[/p][/quote]Why should they have houses at all, plenty of tents available at Oswald Baileys.OSPREYSAINT

loosehead wrote:
I'm shocked at this as these people could take out a fixed rate mortgage &amp; pay less than this if they took up the Government offer of a 75% cut in the cost of their homes.
my neighbour was quoted £110,000 to buy his property a year ago.
now he'll be looking at£35-£40,000 mortgage?
move into the council property &amp; exercise your right to buy &amp; get rid of these rents

Is it really that simple?

[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote:
I'm shocked at this as these people could take out a fixed rate mortgage & pay less than this if they took up the Government offer of a 75% cut in the cost of their homes.
my neighbour was quoted £110,000 to buy his property a year ago.
now he'll be looking at£35-£40,000 mortgage?
move into the council property & exercise your right to buy & get rid of these rents[/p][/quote]Is it really that simple?OSPREYSAINT

loosehead wrote:
I'm shocked at this as these people could take out a fixed rate mortgage &amp; pay less than this if they took up the Government offer of a 75% cut in the cost of their homes.
my neighbour was quoted £110,000 to buy his property a year ago.
now he'll be looking at£35-£40,000 mortgage?
move into the council property &amp; exercise your right to buy &amp; get rid of these rents

Is it really that simple?

If you've been a council tenant for five years or more you have the right to buy.
all(should be all) council tenants received a form offering them the chance to buy their property with a 75% discount
Osprey I know because I received one.
My neighbour applied to buy his a while a go & they quoted him £110,000 he has been there for 40 years & thought it was to much but now he's applied to receive this 75% discount as work out a mortgage on £35-£40,000 & compare it to his rent?
he reckons he would save a packet

[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote:
I'm shocked at this as these people could take out a fixed rate mortgage & pay less than this if they took up the Government offer of a 75% cut in the cost of their homes.
my neighbour was quoted £110,000 to buy his property a year ago.
now he'll be looking at£35-£40,000 mortgage?
move into the council property & exercise your right to buy & get rid of these rents[/p][/quote]Is it really that simple?[/p][/quote]If you've been a council tenant for five years or more you have the right to buy.
all(should be all) council tenants received a form offering them the chance to buy their property with a 75% discount
Osprey I know because I received one.
My neighbour applied to buy his a while a go & they quoted him £110,000 he has been there for 40 years & thought it was to much but now he's applied to receive this 75% discount as work out a mortgage on £35-£40,000 & compare it to his rent?
he reckons he would save a packetloosehead

Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!

Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.

Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!
Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.IronLady2010

After almost bankrupting the country through massive fiscal mishandling we got shot of the Labour government nationally. Did you really think they'd learned their lesson when you voted them back into power at local level?

After almost bankrupting the country through massive fiscal mishandling we got shot of the Labour government nationally. Did you really think they'd learned their lesson when you voted them back into power at local level?Turtlebay

IronLady2010 wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!

Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.

I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!
Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.[/p][/quote]I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.Inform Al

IronLady2010 wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!

Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.

I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.

Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.

Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.

Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.

Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.

[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!
Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.[/p][/quote]I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.[/p][/quote]Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.
Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.
Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.
Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.IronLady2010

IronLady2010 wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!

Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.

I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.

Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.

Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.

Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.

Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.

Sorry, but you've got it wrong. Until more social housing is built at lower rents than are currently charged the prices of houses will not go down to affordable levels. That will mean that private rents will also go down and will lead to a win win situation. More employment, more decent homes and a much lower cost to the public purse through housing benefit. Won't make C'morons friends happy though.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!
Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.[/p][/quote]I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.[/p][/quote]Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.
Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.
Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.
Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but you've got it wrong. Until more social housing is built at lower rents than are currently charged the prices of houses will not go down to affordable levels. That will mean that private rents will also go down and will lead to a win win situation. More employment, more decent homes and a much lower cost to the public purse through housing benefit. Won't make C'morons friends happy though.Inform Al

IronLady2010 wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!

Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.

I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.

Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.

Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.

Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.

Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.

Sorry, but you've got it wrong. Until more social housing is built at lower rents than are currently charged the prices of houses will not go down to affordable levels. That will mean that private rents will also go down and will lead to a win win situation. More employment, more decent homes and a much lower cost to the public purse through housing benefit. Won't make C'morons friends happy though.

The lower you keep the rents, the more people will not work and breed like rabbits as they know they'll get free / cheap housing. It's a no win situation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but far too many people rely on getting pregnant at 13, getting a Council house and never contributing anything back to society and some of my own family do this, which really annoys me.

[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!
Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.[/p][/quote]I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.[/p][/quote]Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.
Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.
Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.
Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but you've got it wrong. Until more social housing is built at lower rents than are currently charged the prices of houses will not go down to affordable levels. That will mean that private rents will also go down and will lead to a win win situation. More employment, more decent homes and a much lower cost to the public purse through housing benefit. Won't make C'morons friends happy though.[/p][/quote]The lower you keep the rents, the more people will not work and breed like rabbits as they know they'll get free / cheap housing. It's a no win situation.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but far too many people rely on getting pregnant at 13, getting a Council house and never contributing anything back to society and some of my own family do this, which really annoys me.IronLady2010

IronLady2010 wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!

Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.

I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.

Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.

Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.

Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.

Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.

Sorry, but you've got it wrong. Until more social housing is built at lower rents than are currently charged the prices of houses will not go down to affordable levels. That will mean that private rents will also go down and will lead to a win win situation. More employment, more decent homes and a much lower cost to the public purse through housing benefit. Won't make C'morons friends happy though.

The lower you keep the rents, the more people will not work and breed like rabbits as they know they'll get free / cheap housing. It's a no win situation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but far too many people rely on getting pregnant at 13, getting a Council house and never contributing anything back to society and some of my own family do this, which really annoys me.

It's not just council homes that pregnated teenagers go for, in fact due to the shortage it's usually privately rented they end up in now. Fact is it's usually the council house tenants these days that are in work as they can afford the rent. It's the private rented that cannot afford to work and pay a mortgage each week/ Just another benefit to us all by building more council houses.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!
Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.[/p][/quote]I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.[/p][/quote]Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.
Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.
Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.
Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but you've got it wrong. Until more social housing is built at lower rents than are currently charged the prices of houses will not go down to affordable levels. That will mean that private rents will also go down and will lead to a win win situation. More employment, more decent homes and a much lower cost to the public purse through housing benefit. Won't make C'morons friends happy though.[/p][/quote]The lower you keep the rents, the more people will not work and breed like rabbits as they know they'll get free / cheap housing. It's a no win situation.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but far too many people rely on getting pregnant at 13, getting a Council house and never contributing anything back to society and some of my own family do this, which really annoys me.[/p][/quote]It's not just council homes that pregnated teenagers go for, in fact due to the shortage it's usually privately rented they end up in now. Fact is it's usually the council house tenants these days that are in work as they can afford the rent. It's the private rented that cannot afford to work and pay a mortgage each week/ Just another benefit to us all by building more council houses.Inform Al

IronLady2010 wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!

Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.

I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.

Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.

Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.

Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.

Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.

Sorry, but you've got it wrong. Until more social housing is built at lower rents than are currently charged the prices of houses will not go down to affordable levels. That will mean that private rents will also go down and will lead to a win win situation. More employment, more decent homes and a much lower cost to the public purse through housing benefit. Won't make C'morons friends happy though.

The lower you keep the rents, the more people will not work and breed like rabbits as they know they'll get free / cheap housing. It's a no win situation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but far too many people rely on getting pregnant at 13, getting a Council house and never contributing anything back to society and some of my own family do this, which really annoys me.

It's not just council homes that pregnated teenagers go for, in fact due to the shortage it's usually privately rented they end up in now. Fact is it's usually the council house tenants these days that are in work as they can afford the rent. It's the private rented that cannot afford to work and pay a mortgage each week/ Just another benefit to us all by building more council houses.

Like I say, I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't know how any Government can now control what has already happened.

We have a large society who want free housing, the rich who want more and us innocents who want the best for everyone.

As it stands if we build more Council houses we'll get more people from abroad to take them as it is their right to do so.

I guess until we close the gates we'll never ever win, I always hoped I'd never say that!

[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!
Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.[/p][/quote]I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.[/p][/quote]Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.
Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.
Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.
Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but you've got it wrong. Until more social housing is built at lower rents than are currently charged the prices of houses will not go down to affordable levels. That will mean that private rents will also go down and will lead to a win win situation. More employment, more decent homes and a much lower cost to the public purse through housing benefit. Won't make C'morons friends happy though.[/p][/quote]The lower you keep the rents, the more people will not work and breed like rabbits as they know they'll get free / cheap housing. It's a no win situation.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but far too many people rely on getting pregnant at 13, getting a Council house and never contributing anything back to society and some of my own family do this, which really annoys me.[/p][/quote]It's not just council homes that pregnated teenagers go for, in fact due to the shortage it's usually privately rented they end up in now. Fact is it's usually the council house tenants these days that are in work as they can afford the rent. It's the private rented that cannot afford to work and pay a mortgage each week/ Just another benefit to us all by building more council houses.[/p][/quote]Like I say, I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't know how any Government can now control what has already happened.
We have a large society who want free housing, the rich who want more and us innocents who want the best for everyone.
As it stands if we build more Council houses we'll get more people from abroad to take them as it is their right to do so.
I guess until we close the gates we'll never ever win, I always hoped I'd never say that!IronLady2010

pregnant 13year olds, hahaha, there's not as many of them as their are corporate scumbags inventing ways to avoid tax.
loosehead check out my posts on here, yahoo, anywhere my narrative on the british economy has been the same since i returned from china 5 years ago.

pregnant 13year olds, hahaha, there's not as many of them as their are corporate scumbags inventing ways to avoid tax.
loosehead check out my posts on here, yahoo, anywhere my narrative on the british economy has been the same since i returned from china 5 years ago.peenut81

Forest Resident wrote:
Welcome to real world rent prices and the harsh reality of the modern housing market! Those enjoying such low council rates have had it good for a long time whilst those renting privately or paying a mortgage do so through the nose. Glad to see the council starting to level the playing field for once.

Hear hear! For those of us who don't qualify for social housing or benefits and are struggling to pay essential food, services and petrol bills, let alone buy essential clothes or go out to the pub or for coffees, this is good news.
Local rentals of 3 bed homes are often £1200 or more per month so council tenants should count themselves lucky!
From what I've seen, many of those on benefits and in council properties still manage to have large screen TVs and the latest smartphones, and have enough money to smoke, drink and gamble, and/or have their hair done and their nails and fake tans topped up regularly!

[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote:
Welcome to real world rent prices and the harsh reality of the modern housing market! Those enjoying such low council rates have had it good for a long time whilst those renting privately or paying a mortgage do so through the nose. Glad to see the council starting to level the playing field for once.[/p][/quote]Hear hear! For those of us who don't qualify for social housing or benefits and are struggling to pay essential food, services and petrol bills, let alone buy essential clothes or go out to the pub or for coffees, this is good news.
Local rentals of 3 bed homes are often £1200 or more per month so council tenants should count themselves lucky!
From what I've seen, many of those on benefits and in council properties still manage to have large screen TVs and the latest smartphones, and have enough money to smoke, drink and gamble, and/or have their hair done and their nails and fake tans topped up regularly!Poppy22

peenut81 wrote:
pregnant 13year olds, hahaha, there's not as many of them as their are corporate scumbags inventing ways to avoid tax.
loosehead check out my posts on here, yahoo, anywhere my narrative on the british economy has been the same since i returned from china 5 years ago.

I've lived in Thailand for a year & to hear people bleat on about how much they get from Social or what type of accommodation they can get with us paying for it makes me sick.
they want to build a one roomed home out of tin(waste) where all of them husband.wife & how ever many children they have live.
No dole money so work or tough luck!
If your incapable of working fine we'll finance you but many don't want to work.
they get up at 12-00 mid day after smoking wacky & have no intention of looking for a job how can this be right?
We have over 3million Eastern Europeans here all working how did they find work if there are no jobs?

[quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote:
pregnant 13year olds, hahaha, there's not as many of them as their are corporate scumbags inventing ways to avoid tax.
loosehead check out my posts on here, yahoo, anywhere my narrative on the british economy has been the same since i returned from china 5 years ago.[/p][/quote]I've lived in Thailand for a year & to hear people bleat on about how much they get from Social or what type of accommodation they can get with us paying for it makes me sick.
they want to build a one roomed home out of tin(waste) where all of them husband.wife & how ever many children they have live.
No dole money so work or tough luck!
If your incapable of working fine we'll finance you but many don't want to work.
they get up at 12-00 mid day after smoking wacky & have no intention of looking for a job how can this be right?
We have over 3million Eastern Europeans here all working how did they find work if there are no jobs?loosehead

IronLady2010 wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!

Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.

I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.

Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.

Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.

Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.

Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.

Sorry, but you've got it wrong. Until more social housing is built at lower rents than are currently charged the prices of houses will not go down to affordable levels. That will mean that private rents will also go down and will lead to a win win situation. More employment, more decent homes and a much lower cost to the public purse through housing benefit. Won't make C'morons friends happy though.

The lower you keep the rents, the more people will not work and breed like rabbits as they know they'll get free / cheap housing. It's a no win situation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but far too many people rely on getting pregnant at 13, getting a Council house and never contributing anything back to society and some of my own family do this, which really annoys me.

It's not just council homes that pregnated teenagers go for, in fact due to the shortage it's usually privately rented they end up in now. Fact is it's usually the council house tenants these days that are in work as they can afford the rent. It's the private rented that cannot afford to work and pay a mortgage each week/ Just another benefit to us all by building more council houses.

Like I say, I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't know how any Government can now control what has already happened.

We have a large society who want free housing, the rich who want more and us innocents who want the best for everyone.

As it stands if we build more Council houses we'll get more people from abroad to take them as it is their right to do so.

I guess until we close the gates we'll never ever win, I always hoped I'd never say that!

Sorry for repeating myself, but I get the impression that we are in agreement on one point at least. Sooner we get out of the EU the better, although as it happens not many of our Eastern European friends are accommodated in social housing yet, it is a ticking timebomb.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Council rents are far too low. Remember the recent article on how many people earning £100k and above were living in a Council house??? This is so wrong!
Increase the rent and make the rent up in Housing Benefit for those who need it. We seem to have lost sight that Council Housing is for those who can't afford normal housing.[/p][/quote]I would rather see all rents go down and for houses to be affordable for ordinary people to buy. This can only happen if more council houses are built. Not gonna happen as from day one when C'moron repealed the legislation on HMOs that it took us 10 years to persuade the previous lot to enact he proved he is only interested in looking after his rich property owning party donors. Lower rents and house prices that us ordinary folk can afford will not appeal to his rich friends.[/p][/quote]Why should rent go down? I don't understand your logic?
£60.72 for a one bed flat £263 a calendar month.
Try and find something similar privately. It would cost the Council this to maintain the property.
Until rents are raised you'll always have those who think society owes them a living, which is wrong.
Now, I agree house prices are too high, but the Council can't control this as it's what the market controls.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but you've got it wrong. Until more social housing is built at lower rents than are currently charged the prices of houses will not go down to affordable levels. That will mean that private rents will also go down and will lead to a win win situation. More employment, more decent homes and a much lower cost to the public purse through housing benefit. Won't make C'morons friends happy though.[/p][/quote]The lower you keep the rents, the more people will not work and breed like rabbits as they know they'll get free / cheap housing. It's a no win situation.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but far too many people rely on getting pregnant at 13, getting a Council house and never contributing anything back to society and some of my own family do this, which really annoys me.[/p][/quote]It's not just council homes that pregnated teenagers go for, in fact due to the shortage it's usually privately rented they end up in now. Fact is it's usually the council house tenants these days that are in work as they can afford the rent. It's the private rented that cannot afford to work and pay a mortgage each week/ Just another benefit to us all by building more council houses.[/p][/quote]Like I say, I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't know how any Government can now control what has already happened.
We have a large society who want free housing, the rich who want more and us innocents who want the best for everyone.
As it stands if we build more Council houses we'll get more people from abroad to take them as it is their right to do so.
I guess until we close the gates we'll never ever win, I always hoped I'd never say that![/p][/quote]Sorry for repeating myself, but I get the impression that we are in agreement on one point at least. Sooner we get out of the EU the better, although as it happens not many of our Eastern European friends are accommodated in social housing yet, it is a ticking timebomb.Inform Al

loosehead wrote:
I'm shocked at this as these people could take out a fixed rate mortgage &amp; pay less than this if they took up the Government offer of a 75% cut in the cost of their homes. my neighbour was quoted £110,000 to buy his property a year ago. now he'll be looking at£35-£40,000 mortgage? move into the council property &amp; exercise your right to buy &amp; get rid of these rents

And how would that solve anything?
All council tenants buy up their homes until there are no council homes?
Increase the rents in line with private rents and remove this right to buy.
As it currently stands you get a very cheap home (even if you pay the rent yourself) then you could decide to get a job and buy your house for a quarter of it's value! Then after a few years you can sell the property at full market value and make a killing.
When I bought my first house, I moved gome with my parents, saved very hard for 4 years until I had a 20% deposit. This wasn't easy but I did it completely by myself so it's a kick in the teeth to those that don't have council properties. If I sell my house, I hope to make a profit but it won'r be like anything that council tenants that buy their houses get!

[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote:
I'm shocked at this as these people could take out a fixed rate mortgage & pay less than this if they took up the Government offer of a 75% cut in the cost of their homes. my neighbour was quoted £110,000 to buy his property a year ago. now he'll be looking at£35-£40,000 mortgage? move into the council property & exercise your right to buy & get rid of these rents[/p][/quote]And how would that solve anything?
All council tenants buy up their homes until there are no council homes?
Increase the rents in line with private rents and remove this right to buy.
As it currently stands you get a very cheap home (even if you pay the rent yourself) then you could decide to get a job and buy your house for a quarter of it's value! Then after a few years you can sell the property at full market value and make a killing.
When I bought my first house, I moved gome with my parents, saved very hard for 4 years until I had a 20% deposit. This wasn't easy but I did it completely by myself so it's a kick in the teeth to those that don't have council properties. If I sell my house, I hope to make a profit but it won'r be like anything that council tenants that buy their houses get!sotonboy84

loosehead wrote:
I'm shocked at this as these people could take out a fixed rate mortgage &amp; pay less than this if they took up the Government offer of a 75% cut in the cost of their homes. my neighbour was quoted £110,000 to buy his property a year ago. now he'll be looking at£35-£40,000 mortgage? move into the council property &amp; exercise your right to buy &amp; get rid of these rents

And how would that solve anything?
All council tenants buy up their homes until there are no council homes?
Increase the rents in line with private rents and remove this right to buy.
As it currently stands you get a very cheap home (even if you pay the rent yourself) then you could decide to get a job and buy your house for a quarter of it's value! Then after a few years you can sell the property at full market value and make a killing.
When I bought my first house, I moved gome with my parents, saved very hard for 4 years until I had a 20% deposit. This wasn't easy but I did it completely by myself so it's a kick in the teeth to those that don't have council properties. If I sell my house, I hope to make a profit but it won'r be like anything that council tenants that buy their houses get!

I know your not telling all the truth are you?
Many council tenants remain council tenants but are house in housing association homes so yes there would still be properties wouldn't there?
I'm a great believer in allowing the councils to sell the properties to existing tenants & keeping that money to build new properties or buy ones where the owners have passed away

[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote:
I'm shocked at this as these people could take out a fixed rate mortgage & pay less than this if they took up the Government offer of a 75% cut in the cost of their homes. my neighbour was quoted £110,000 to buy his property a year ago. now he'll be looking at£35-£40,000 mortgage? move into the council property & exercise your right to buy & get rid of these rents[/p][/quote]And how would that solve anything?
All council tenants buy up their homes until there are no council homes?
Increase the rents in line with private rents and remove this right to buy.
As it currently stands you get a very cheap home (even if you pay the rent yourself) then you could decide to get a job and buy your house for a quarter of it's value! Then after a few years you can sell the property at full market value and make a killing.
When I bought my first house, I moved gome with my parents, saved very hard for 4 years until I had a 20% deposit. This wasn't easy but I did it completely by myself so it's a kick in the teeth to those that don't have council properties. If I sell my house, I hope to make a profit but it won'r be like anything that council tenants that buy their houses get![/p][/quote]I know your not telling all the truth are you?
Many council tenants remain council tenants but are house in housing association homes so yes there would still be properties wouldn't there?
I'm a great believer in allowing the councils to sell the properties to existing tenants & keeping that money to build new properties or buy ones where the owners have passed awayloosehead